Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while setting aside the transfer order, noted that the judge’s comment did not reflect any bias in favor of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The High Court emphasized that the conversations between judges and their court staff are confidential and should not be taken out of context.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday (28th May): The Delhi High Court set aside an order issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue Courts, which had transferred the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar.
This decision came after allegations that Judge Kumar had remarked to the court staff,
“ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai?” (Who gets bail in ED matters?).
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while setting aside the transfer order, noted that the judge’s comment did not reflect any bias in favor of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The High Court emphasized that the conversations between judges and their court staff are confidential and should not be taken out of context.
READ ALSO: Ex-ED Officer Vs ED | Delhi HC Declines Officer’s PIL Against ED & Section 66 PMLA
Justice Sharma asserted that maintaining the dignity of judges is crucial and that transferring cases based on such remarks could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
The High Court instructed that the matter be reconsidered by the District Judge, who must re-evaluate the transfer plea with the High Court’s observations in mind.
Background
On May 1, the Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna had ordered the transfer of the case following a plea by Ajay S Mittal, one of the accused. Mittal had expressed apprehension over a potential bias after the remark made by Judge Jagdish Kumar during a hearing on April 10.
Mittal’s bail plea was scheduled for hearing that day, but his counsel sought an adjournment to prepare, leading the judge to remark on the improbability of bail in ED cases.
“The matter is still in its early stages, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the case is heard by another competent court. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to transfer the proceedings to another court. The applicant’s request is granted,” Judge Chandna stated.
Mittal’s plea was supported by his wife, also an accused, who witnessed the proceedings and reported the judge’s comment. Judge Chandna ruled that Mittal’s concerns about the judge’s bias were not unfounded and allowed the case to be transferred to another competent court to avoid any prejudice.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed the transfer, arguing that Mittal had not provided sufficient evidence to justify his apprehensions. Following the transfer, the ED approached the High Court, seeking to overturn the District Judge’s decision.
READ ALSO: ED Accuses Delhi Excise Scam Suspects of Delaying Trial
The High Court’s intervention and subsequent ruling to nullify the transfer order highlight the judiciary’s commitment to upholding impartiality and maintaining confidence in judicial proceedings.
The ED was represented by Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and advocate Kartik Sabharwal. Ajay S Mittal’s legal team included Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Mohit Mathur, along with advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Deepak Goel, and Shreya.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v Ajay S Mittal
